I've changed my mind about 4 times about this. Last season I would have said that it was bad luck, play on.

But given that the Tribunal has stated that if you make contact and hit the head then you are guilty I can't see how he wouldn't get suspended.

With my Crows hat on - Lynch was the only player going for the ball. He was tackled and had his arms pinned so he couldn't protect himself. Viney chose to bump him with the point of his shoulder hitting Lynch's head so hard it not only broke his jaw but forced his head back with such force that the Melbourne tackler got concussion from the clash of heads. On that basis, he was very lucky to be graded only as moderate severity (although how a 1 week concussion is "high severity" but a 6-7 week broken jaw is moderate is beyond me), and should have been suspended.

The other argument (and the Victorians are united in this) is that Viney didn't have time to react and was only defending himself. However, this ignores the fact that Viney could have chosen to tackle not bump and given that he chose to bump he has to wear the consequences. It also doesn't appear on the video that Viney pulled up at all so he was intent on making contact of some sort.

Given the precedence set so far this season it is a fair call.

Whether Fyfe and Viney should have been reported at all is another question entirely.

I looked at the video of it that was presented from 2 or 3 different angles.

Viney was running at the ball, as was Lynch.Lynch was obviously going to get there first, and I saw Viney pull up to some degree.There was always going to be contact so he instinctively turned sideways (probably to protect himself) and really didn't have any choice but to bump. He didn't hit Lynch's head, that was Georgiou. If Georgiou wasn't there, it would have just been play on and Lynch gets to front this week.

So what do you do? Not run into a 1 on 1 on contest to the ball?Jump out of the way, (even if you have time)?

This is where this rule is anti-football.

Remember it was designed to stop the shirtfront and bumps off the ball when blokes didn't have time to protect themselves. But now with this precedent, it now is being used for on ball contests.

Viney had no intent (in my mind) to do other than protect himself. Things evolve in these contests so fast, you have little time to react.

If this is going to be the way the game is adjudicated, then you may as well make it netball.

Along, with the inconsistent and confusing interpretations of the other rules this season.

IE Holding the ball when it is pinned to you underneath and have no chance to get rid of it.And yet you can be tackled, spun 360 degrees and effectively just throw or drop the pill and it is play on. Does any bugger in the afl know what they really want to adjudicate with the holding the ball rule?

And while we are at it. it seems arm chopping in marking contests is now ok. Haven't seen one all season.

Taking the legs out in contests, well they have forgotten about that one for the most part.

They get sensible in the first few weeks by letting some of these things go in the spirit of more flow to the game. And now to the point of picking up almost nothing.

And the last one.

OK the bump seems to be dead and now you're out if you do, but only if the bloke is injured. So it is the injury rather than the action. Not sensible.

But the real rub is you can rip into a bloke and near tear his head off with a high tackle. But that is just a free kick.

Does anybody out there understand what is football and what isn't? Because there are plenty of coaches and players that are saying they have no idea.

So that ain't going to help all of us much.

Watching AFL is so frustrating because of their need to be so hopelessly inconsistent.

It is interesting reading all the comments on the afl web site newsfeed on this.Nearly all past and current players and coaches are befuddled or disappointed in the result of this case.

One notable advocate is Leigh Matthews who at least conceded it should have been 1 week not 2. I still can't understand his rationale for this at all. Looking at his own game under these rules, Leigh would have been lucky to play 50 games he would have been rubbed out so often.

Read what most of those players actually said about the incident and the fact that they considered that he was protecting himself and couldn't avoid contact. A number of them talked about the alternative of jumping out of the way and the look that that would promote.

Some even spoke of blokes pulling up from contests and just waiting to respond to the other player's attack on the ball. Is that what we want to see in footy?

I understand about people being accountable, but accidents for clashes are going to happen unless you make it non-contact sport. And then they are probably still going to happen.

The more this cr@p continues, the more disillusioned I become with the whole game.

Is it a contact sport or not, circa 2014 and I struggle to understand the direction the game is heading in.

Nobody wants to see a player come out of a clash with an opponent injured, both were doing what they have been instructed to do by there respective coaches, go in hard, win the ball, beat your opponent.Viney was committed without any intent to hurt Lynch and I only hope the Melbourne Football Club appeals the decision. I saw the video and disagree with the suspension.

If there was retrospective tribunal penalties handed out, what would Allan Jackovic get for head high contact when he ''collided'' with his brother Glens' head by kissing him...so what would he get ?

as for the Viney case this is just another reason i stopped going to AFL matches, it wasn't sniping, it wasn't intent to hurt etc, it was just a footy collision & it was unfortunate a injury like this was sustained..................................i've obviously have seen it on replay a few times during the week but the film stops, so what i want to know did any player remonstrate with Viney after the collision ?

i'm convinced the AFL is more worried about getting sued down the track than the actual game itself

Chambo- Viney clearly contacted Lynch as the broken Jaw was on the side that Viney was on, not on the side that Georgiou was on. I think that's probably the sole reason that he was suspended.

Personally, I have no problem with the suspension- I have no doubt there was no malice intended but the afl has said regularly over the last couple of years that if you choose to bump and there's damage to the head then you'll be suspended.

Hell hath no fury like a Melbourne supporter scorned. Not really, but they’ve been up in arms and hitting Twitter with force this week and not without reason following the quite farcical suspension of Jack Viney for his (I know they don’t want to call it this but it was) bump on Adelaide’s Tom Lynch. It wasn’t entirely unexpected that he’d feel the wrath of the tribunal, but it still sucked. It really sucked. It didn’t “tear up your membership” or “not attend a league event you probably didn’t want to go to anyway” suck, but it sucked. It’s also worth noting at this point that it sucked for Tom Lynch, too. It’s likely that he’d also rather his head hadn’t been stuck between another head and a shoulder like a melon in a vice. Them’s the breaks. Literally. But then the clouds parted and something remarkable happened. THE AFL SAID “WE WERE WRONG.” What a great result for common sense.

DERMOTT Brereton can now accept his invite to the Australian Football Hall of Fame dinner next month.

Mark Ricciuto can stop being shop steward demanding the players go on strike.

Hysterical past players and fans can put away their black armbands for the death of Australian football.

But as they rejoice on the AFL appeals board dismissing the two-game ban on Melbourne mdifielder Jack Viney - for his rough conduct against Crows forward Tom Lynch at Adelaide Oval on Saturday - the game again tumbles into massive confusion on the bump.

And Lynch - who has a broken jaw and may miss as many as six games that are so critical to his wish to establish himself as a regular player in Adelaide coach Brenton Sanderson’s mind - can order another straw to sip champagne as everyone celebrates the salvation of Australian football.

From this mess must come some leadership on what the game expects from its players, the match review panel and the tribunal.

Clearly the umpires have given up as they have not been involved in ruling on any of the contentious bumps this season - not even with a free kick.

The game’s biggest name and one of the VFL’s toughest players, Leigh Matthews, summed up the Viney bump perfectly in between the tribunal and appeal hearings.

Matthews accepted Viney had a reasonable alternative as he approached Lynch.Jack Viney cleared to play by AFL appeals board 2:26

Melbourne's Jack Viney has been cleared to play this weekend after the AFL appeals board overturned the two-match suspension he was handed by the tribunal.

Autoplay

On Off

“He could have opened his arms and tackled,” Matthew said.

And until last night everyone was clear: Bumping a player while ignoring a reasonable alternative and cause a serious head injury leads to a ban.

Three experienced VFL-AFL players who served as the tribunal panel on Tuesday night did exactly as everyone has asked of the AFL judiciary.

They maintained consistency hitting Viney on the same terms they banned Nat Fyfe (Fremantle) and Richard Douglas (Adelaide) and reprimanded Daniel Giansiracusa (Western Bulldogs) for their bumps.

Now the appeals board - without explanation - has left everyone confusion, even if the majority of fans and former players are rejoicing that Viney will play against the Bulldogs at the MCG on Friday night.

Pity AFL football operations chief Mark Evans who this morning has to clean up this mess. When is a bump legal, when is it dangerous, when will a player be held to account for injuring a player after ignoring a reasonable alternative?

And Lynch - who has a broken jaw and may miss as many as six games that are so critical to his wish to establish himself as a regular player in Adelaide coach Brenton Sanderson’s mind - can order another straw to sip champagne as everyone celebrates the salvation of Australian football.

If the umpires were able to even see if high contact had occurred at the time, what would they pay a free against Viney for?

Is the "bump" in the rule book as a penalty in itself?

So you can get rubbed out for a high bump, but not a non-high bump?Or is it more a bump that results in head injury of some type?Or what if the bump results in broken ribs. IE non-high injury.Or do these buggers not really know what the penalty actually is that they are trying to police?

AFL, fix it and in relation to a "bump", tell everyone; - what is a free kick and what is not- if it matters that it is off the ball or are on ball clashes the same?- what is reportable and - what is the associated penalty with or without injury to a player